• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Resolved: As a general Principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Mark Mendez District Debate 3-9-04 Resolved: As a general Principle, individuals have an obligation to value the common good above their own interests. AFFIRMATIVE The affirmative side according to this debate is to side with the statement that individuals as a general principle must value the common good above their own interests. This debate in simpler terms is the common good versus self interests. However according to the resolution the debate can be structured in endless ways and formats. In order to clarify the side of Affirmative I offer these clarifying terms. Obligation is the duty to honor the life, liberty, or possessions of others. In John Locke's terms, "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions. Common good is the goal of any body politic. The social compact theory of government allows individuals to band together in community, out of their state of nature, to form a body politic for their overall benefit and security. General Principal cannot be limited to a specific case. A government cannot indirectly "produce a result which it cannot command directly," (Sonnerman). ...read more.

Middle

A persons life, health, liberty, and possessions are higher benefits than being able to have unregulated individualism. An individual's loss is just if the community benefits. My second contention is that unrestrained individualism hurts individualism. a. The ideas of individual choice and decision are noble at best. The thought that ever human should be able to do whatever they want whenever they want as long as they do not harm property, life, or liberty cannot hold true. For ever action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example the CEO of a large business chooses to close down its factories in America and open up new sweat shops in middle-east countries. Not only does the CEO's self interest bring cruel working conditions to women and children but also it causes Individual Americans to be out of the job. Valuing self interests justifies this because the man now makes more money. b. Unrestrained self interests cannot be justified. "Society is joint action and cooperation in which each participant sees the other partner's success as a means for the attainment of his own," (Mises) Altruism as a general principle is no longer practiced. ...read more.

Conclusion

One cannot argue that the loss of slavery did not harm self interests. Racism and a poor economy in the south both arose from the civil war conclusion. Cost benefit analysis of this proves that the gain in freedom of an entire race and culture outweighed the loss in economic stability. b. It was for the common good that all rights are given to countries citizens. The common good instills the positive aspects of self interests such as one's freedom in equilibrium with utility. Valuing the common good maximizes the amount of people in the collective who have these freedoms. In conclusion I have proven that individuals must value the common good above their own self interests in order to preserve their way of live made by collective goods, help individualism by regulating some liberties, and to allow collectivism to balance with self interest. I state that a collective is a formation of a group of individuals with similar ideals and goals. Siding with the affirmative is the most logical by considering the examples given by Harvard professors, and enlightened philosophers. Cost benefit analysis of any situation shows that the common good must be valued above an individuals own interests. Again I must urge an affirmative ballot. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Political Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Political Philosophy essays

  1. Notes on John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    There are two reasons that these kinds of laws should not be passed according to Mill's theory. The first reason is simply that the government has no particular interest in what I do with my own life and my own possessions, certainly no interest that compares to the overwhelming interest that I have in my own life, health, and property.

  2. Andrew Jackson: Common Man or Common Scoundrel

    Disaffected workers and yeomen, especially in the South and the West, faulted bankers for the land repossession. The second Bank of the United States (BUS) symbolized to the masses all the privileged monopolies in the country. Pressured by local banks, state legislatures began heavily taxing the BUS, as seen in the Supreme Court case McCullough vs.

  1. How and why does Locke explain the creation, value and protection of property?

    252) and make it our own. He then says that by people acquiring land they are not taking away land from anybody else since there is so much of it. And not only are they are not doing anything wrong they are actually doing a good thing for every one else.

  2. Russia's Political Party System as an Obstacle to Democratization

    Not only are the powerful gaining access to the political system by bypassing parties, but the "parties of power" that have formed around federal and regional executives have begun to exert their power to manipulate election results. One author argues that Putin is creating "managed democracy" Mexican-style through a ruling

  1. Deontology- a theory based purely on obligation or duty.

    The foundations for rule deontological ethics were derived from the beliefs of Kant. In summary, he tended to believe that knowledge was a direct result of the sort of "monkey see, monkey do" correlation. This relationship, in his opinion, was one in which the mind developed categories to determine the right from the wrong.

  2. Is Democracy a viable form of political obligation?

    Democracy is seen as special because it is put as a main reason why we should obey and accept the rules in society, its because they are democratically made4. The argument put forward is, if the people who the citizen voted for in the first place produce the laws, then

  1. "...the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so ...

    state, but he would condemn the actions of Silvio Berlusconi changing the law in Italy so that he could not be prosecuted while in power as being for purely personal gain. Central to his theory is the concept of the 'contextual ethic' - there is no absolute right or wrong

  2. Compare Hobbes and Locke's views on the obligation to obey the law.

    to fight for global justice, but I will leave this aside here.) The ?problem of political obligation? is that of whether we do have such an obligation. Three clarifications: (a) Self-interested reasons to obey the law (fear of punishment, Hobbes?s argument)

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work